| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion | | Date: | Thursday, June 14, 2007 20:30:33 (-0400) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4875 (written by Peter) |
(Peter, quoting Douglas from "Warning Democracy" :-)
".....but it is clear
enough that we are approaching, and that fairly closely, to a situation
threatening the productive system itself. With a view to meeting this
situation one of the first requisites is to deal with the immobilisation of
bank credits in fixed assets."
(Joe replies:-) I think we'd have to look at that passage in regards to the
times in which it was written. The British "productive system itself" WAS
being ''threatened" by its inability to produce at a profit due to the
increasingly stringent financial constrictions imposed upon it throughout
the 1920's, and made still worse by the onset of the worldwide Depression
following the stock market crash of 1929.
When Douglas wrote that, a great many British manufacturers had already gone
into bankruptcy, or had been placed in the hands of Bank appointed
receivers. In many cases, plants which were quite capable of 'physically'
producing a variety of necessary products quite efficiently were being
'liquidated', or 'rationalized'. To supposedly serve 'financial' ends.
Other plants were operated under the management of Bank 'accountants'
instructed to produce a purely favourable 'financial' result, regardless of
any other considerations.
There WAS an "immobilisation" of bank credits in "fixed assets". Loans that
couldn't be repaid because the firms were no longer profitable, or
sufficiently profitable, to do so.
Primarily because of the financial conditions that had been imposed on the
entire British economy, (probably starting with the return to the 'gold
standard' when Winston Churchill was busy making an attempt to
're-habilitate' himself politically as Chancellor of the Exchequer). Not
through any overall fault of the firms themselves.
(Peter, quoting Douglas, continues:-) "There are many ways of doing this,
and perhaps
one of the simplest would be the automatic writing up of the bank-credits
of
any limited company to correspond with the increase in its fixed assets, as
certified by a chartered accountant during a given accounting period. The
effect of this, so long as the result was not defeated by rings of prices,
would be to lower prices by enabling competitive concerns to get a
proportion of their overhead charges out of prices charged for their
product. It would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of the manufacturer, and
in itself would do little to meet the twin difficulties of forced exports
and decreased human labour per unit of production, both of which are vital
to a comprehensive solution. But it would at any rate deliver us from the
mismanagement of the financial hierarchy, and in so doing would stimulate
the initiative of the class which appears to have the right type of mind for
the attainment of a more permanent solution."
(Joe replies:-) Douglas obviously regards this proposal as a temporary
measure, designed, as was his advice to Aberhart to seek a "creation of
credit" from one of the Canadian chartered Banks to meet the upcoming
payments of the then 'fundless' Alberta Government, to meet some specific
immediate need. I don't think he envisioned there being any permanent
mechanism to give 'debt-free' credits directly to 'producers'. They'd only
come through the hands of 'consumers' first.
(Peter continues:-) I would consider it political madness to try for a
discount on top of a
dividend simply because too many people even within social credit circles
would fight tooth and nail against it simply because they dont want the
lower class seeming to get something for nothing.
(Joe replies:-) I see Wally has addressed the issue of the ''something for
nothing'' attitude. And far better than I could ever do, so I won't comment
further on that. But I am curious about the way you've worded what you
written above. Do you think the 'dividend' would come first, or the
'discount'? My own feeling is that in a properly functioning 'social
credit' system, we'd certainly need both.
But on the road to that system I'd be inclined to put far more initial
emphasis on the 'discount'. I believe even those who persist in trying to
'elect' a "Social Credit Party" government would probably get far further in
promoting a system of 'lower prices' than they ever will in promising a
'dividend', (or trying to "spend money into circulation" on 'public works',
etc.)
Of course, they might not get very far in any case. But it's always seemed
to me, considering that the "something for nothing" animosity DOES exist,
and overcoming it is going to be a major obstacle, that those determined to
go the 'political Party' route might find "lower prices" through the
'discount' would be something considerably easier to put across. And it is
a method with far less inherent problems involving 'inflation' and
'taxation', and some 'real' benefits in regards to your international trade
for your citizens themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
> You might have a pet definition Joe of 100%, no one else seems to have. I
> am not describing any existing system and the question was on a proposal
> that has the same basis as the debt money system regards 'reserve' means
of
> debt being paid- it is covered by future created money ( new money
> arriving). So really there is no difference and at the end of the day it
> will be what the techocrats devise, all we are doing as far as I am
> concerned is looking at the potentials and stats have everything to do
with
> it where accounting/records are concerned.
> For example, the 'overnight cash rate' is a stat that compares timelots to
> decide whether interest rates should go up or down.
>
> Below is the piece I was looking for explain I believe the reason for
> credits to industry, so us consumers dont have to need more debt to pay
for
> the industry in the goods price. Its on page 184 or there abouts in
Warning
> Democracy. As he said there are many ways of doing it and a discount is
> one.
> "It will at once be seen that this situation is intrinsically bound up
with
> the fact that effective demand starts from the banks and is regarded by
them
> as their property. A little consideration further, however, will make it
> clear that any possible justification for this situation must rest on the
> assumption that the bank system is a governing system possessed, either by
> common consent or inherent virtue, of supreme economic sovereignty.
> Now, as is fairly well known, this is not my view. But it is not very much
> use holding such a view if the situation is inescapable as, of course, it
is
> not.
> Ultimately, a properly co-ordinated system of credit issue and price
> regulation, which will in effect place the point of issue of purchasing
> power with the consumer, from whom fundamentally it arises, and to whom in
> essence it belongs, is the only solution of the difficulty, but it is
clear
> enough that we are approaching, and that fairly closely, to a situation
> threatening the productive system itself. With a view to meeting this
> situation one of the first requisites is to deal with the immobilisation
of
> bank credits in fixed assets. There are many ways of doing this, and
perhaps
> one of the simplest would be the automatic writing up of the bank-credits
of
> any limited company to correspond with the increase in its fixed assets,
as
> certified by a chartered accountant during a given accounting period. The
> effect of this, so long as the result was not defeated by rings of prices,
> would be to lower prices by enabling competitive concerns to get a
> proportion of their overhead charges out of prices charged for their
> product. It would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of the manufacturer, and
> in itself would do little to meet the twin difficulties of forced exports
> and decreased human labour per unit of production, both of which are vital
> to a comprehensive solution. But it would at any rate deliver us from the
> mismanagement of the financial hierarchy, and in so doing would stimulate
> the initiative of the class which appears to have the right type of mind
for
> the attainment of a more permanent solution."
>
> I would consider it political madness to try for a discount on top of a
> dividend simply because too many people even within social credit circles
> would fight tooth and nail against it simply because they dont want the
> lower class seeming to get something for nothing. ( this is the price of
> having the movement swamped by people who want the money not the
philosophy)
> This class/self righteous attitude is akin to that of thinking social
credit
> is too good for mankind. The greens would spew for other mis-guided
> reasons. If the manufacturer got credits, politically you balance the
> 'right' with the 'left' dividend as they would seem to be to the general
> public. If the Social Credit movement had of started pushing the credits
to
> industry first and go those people on side who had influence and were the
> major employers then the Union thing may have become a different kettle of
> fish and in our cause. But history shows social crediters are pretty much
> deadheads when it comes to politics.
> Peter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
>
>
> > (Peter wrote:-) If term deposit use by banks are required to be subject
to
> > 100% reserve,
> > couldnt this be achieved by only onlending at a rate less than that of
> > which new deposits are incoming, and probably set by the stats of the
> > last
> > quarter?
> >
> > (Joe replies:-) No, they couldn't 'on-lend' anything and still be 100%
> > reserve. They'd have to retain 100% of what they received. The stats
of
> > the last quarter wouldn't have anything to do with that. Nor would any
> > inflow of 'money' from the ND and CPD as new deposits from customers.
> > 100%
> > reserve means just what it says it does, they couldn't 'lend', no matter
> > where the 'money' came from. As soon as they did they would no longer
be
> > 100% reserve.
> >
> > (Peter:-) Any hick-up being covered by 'reserves' at the Central bank.
> > So
> > when a respective depositor is due his money it is met by funds that
> > arrived that day, since it is all a matter of bookkeeping.
> >
> > (Joe:-) But it wouldn't matter if the 'reserves' were at the Central
> > bank,
> > or in their own vaults. 100% reserve would forestall any 'lending'
> > whatsoever, no matter whether funds were arriving that day or not. They
> > have to still be able to 'create credit' in order to 'lend'. And if you
> > replaced the 'debt-money' system in 'loans' to PRODUCERS with a
> > 'credit-money' system of 'grants' to PRODUCERS (and/or the "Government",
> > in
> > its role as a 'producer'), how could you have CONSUMER control of
'credit'
> > in the way Douglas's philosophy envisioned? The 'individual' consumer
> > wouldn't be able to "...make his policy effective unto himself", (by
> > deciding what he will, or will not, 'buy' through his "...ability to be
> > able to choose or refuse one thing at a time"). He'd be subject to the
> > whims of the 'producer' and 'government', in the exercise of their
ability
> > to decide what's "best for him".
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
> >
> >
> >> Bill said:
> >>
> >> "........The theorem that loans create deposits does not mean
> >> that deposits come into existence entirely through
> >> loans. It does not now mean it, nor has it ever meant
> >> it."
> >>
> >> Peter- You are only correcting a claim that 'loans create ALL deposits'
> >> which different.
> >> Likewise banks say they 'lend deposits' when they could say more
> >> realistically 'we create deposits' ( in fact 97%)
> >> I fail to see any real point in this.
> >>
> >> "The consumer will take his National Dividend check
> >> representing new money to his bank, and be given two
> >> choices: to deposit it into a "current account," or
> >> into a "term account.
> >>
> >> He will be encouraged to deposit it into a "term
> >> account," inasmuch as his banker is required by his
> >> regulators to keep on reserve only a predetermined
> >> fraction of his term deposit liabilities. Otherwise,
> >> he could not make loans."
> >>
> >> Peter- If current account deposits are not lent or money created
against
> >> them then I cant see the matter of 'reserve' would apply.
> >>
> >> If term deposit use by banks are required to be subject to 100%
reserve,
> >> couldnt this be achieved by only onlending at a rate less than that of
> > which
> >> new deposits are incoming, and probably set by the stats of the last
> >> quarter? Any hick-up being covered by 'reserves' at the Central bank.
> >> So
> >> when a respective depositor is due his money it is met by funds that
> >> arrived that day, since it is all a matter of bookkeeping.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> >> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:33 AM
> >> Subject: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
> >>
> >>
> >> > Well, in our system most transactions are conducted
> >> > through the transfer of bank deposits. We think of
> >> > "money" as being what we receive in our pay and
> >> > dividend vouchers, which are in the form of bank
> >> > deposits. They are generally acceptable throughout
> >> > the economy in payment for goods and services.
> >> >
> >> > The question becomes, how do bank deposits come into
> >> > existence?
> >> >
> >> > The theorem that loans create deposits does not mean
> >> > that deposits come into existence entirely through
> >> > loans. It does not now mean it, nor has it ever meant
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >> > The consumer will take his National Dividend check
> >> > representing new money to his bank, and be given two
> >> > choices: to deposit it into a "current account," or
> >> > into a "term account."
> >> >
> >> > He will be encouraged to deposit it into a "term
> >> > account," inasmuch as his banker is required by his
> >> > regulators to keep on reserve only a predetermined
> >> > fraction of his term deposit liabilities. Otherwise,
> >> > he could not make loans.
> >> >
> >> > So, one hundred percent reserves does not really mean
> >> > one hundred percent reserves, even in the supposed one
> >> > hundred percent reserve system. It means merely that
> >> > one hundred percent reserves be kept against "current
> >> > account" deposits.
> >> >
> >> > The "monetary reformers" are simply confused on this
> >> > matter, having a very poor understanding of money and
> >> > credit.
> >> >
> >> > -------original message--------
> >> >
> >> > Frankly, this is the sort of gibberish that does
> >> > Social Credit no favours whatever. Note, for example,
> >> > the comment about businesses borrowing .."if they do
> >> > not have the capital ..." when the other day we were
> >> > insisting that all new production must be financed by
> >> > new credits.
> >> >
> >> > Bank loans precede deposits, bank loans or purchases,
> >> > under the present system, increase the money supply.
> >> > I can think of ways in which the lending can be
> >> > controlled, as per Martin's earlier suggestion, that
> >> > when they create money, they would be deemed to have
> >> > used the national credit, a system hinted at in a
> >> > lengthy way by part of what Vic wrote. Or perhaps the
> >> > sort of system we envisage, that they are allocated by
> >> > the central bank the right to create a certain amount
> >> > over a certain time. Basically the same.
> >> >
> >> > But nobody has suggested a practical means of
> >> > preventing them from creating money, if they are to
> >> > provide anything like the services they now do.
> >> > "Their own funds" or reserves currently serve to
> >> > finance transfers to other banks resulting from their
> >> > lending and the deposits being made with their
> >> > competitors.
> >> >
> >> > Let's not worry about what someone "wrote". Let it
> >> > not be a religeon based on the teaching of prophets,
> >> > but an exercise based on precise logic.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
> > ________
> >> > Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> >> > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
> >> > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
at
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >> > You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
> >> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> >> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >> You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> >> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message